On government regulation of TV entertainment
We should not minimise the significance of having a universal medium of entertainment. One of the reasons why people in the US are beginning to move away from congested and costly cities is that thanks to satellite TV one can enjoy an entire range of entertainment anywhere and also have a house that turns out a lot cheaper. So, its not all that bad a thing to think of the television as a universal medium.
On objectives of regulation
There is substantial regulation over the broadcast television and what is the purpose of those regulation. The policy goal of US electronic media regulation is to promote investment, while ensuring free competition and we want more. That is why we should have more satellites, more channels and more technology and more choices and more forms of deliveries of technology and more competition. That is why we are licensing as many direct broadcast satellites as we can find space for in the sky. That is why we are willing to negotiate with Mexico and thats why we would negotiate with Canada to let their satellites broadcast in our country. We have introduced a new digital, terrestrial local service, we give licences out.Our licences is for anything you want... just deliver more channels. We are doing whatever to promote investment in this sector. We welcome foreign investment in domestic areas with one exception anyone can buy a satellite slot or cable system and set up shop.
On structure of regulators
It is very important that the regulatory structure be transparent. In order to provide service providers with the right incentives, they need to know the rules of the game, to be able to participate in regulatory proceedings and to understand the basis for regulators decision. But it is important to have positive regulation rather than restriction.
On how TV can control politics and politicians
Its a simple case of TV being in a position to deliver political consensus. The fact is that television is one of the primary ways through which we are able to keep democracy going in an extremely complex country. Seventy out of hundred people learn about the countrys affairs only through televisions, and I submit that they would not know any thing without TV. This medium has the ability to form an opinion about every political leader in our country and it is because of this that we are able to develop a consensus.
On foreign ownership
We always had a limit on foreign ownership of commercial terrestrial licences. But there is no foreign ownership restriction on satellite channels. Still, FCC can give a waiver and allow foreign investment over 25 per cent and we have allowed that. Rupert Murdochs case of turning an American probably is the only exception. However, our policy is that the best way to promote investment is to let everybody else give you money and so we are extremely enthusiastic about having the captains of the world come and build our communication network.
Monopolised media, but a competitive one
We call this diversity in-point-of-view and diversity in ownership...very similar ideas to those of Indians. This is extremely difficult because business have a tendency to converge and seek monopoly profits. The government needs to be extremely aggressive in this, and must have the ability to say `no to combinations, acquisitions and mergers and joint ventures though everybody in the business say it would be an efficient monopoly. But such a scenario would give too much power. Concentration has to be avoided. The market for broadcast TV is market for advertising revenue. It is not of social significance when a particular company has 50 per cent of ad revenue, but it becomes a matter of concern if a company has 50 per cent of media outlet in a city. Our rules also prohibit common ownership of a radio or TV station and daily newspaper in the same market, or in the same geographical market. A paper in Washington can own a TV station in Detroit. Ownership of more than one media outlet in many instances makes
the acquisition and delivery of content more efficient. The US also has limit on TV station ownership but in term of audience reach, no company can own stations reaching more than 35 per cent of US television households.
On minimum number of channels in the US and how Indians can set up cable networks in the US
There is no legal minimum number of channels but the average number of channels is 70-100 in urban areas. About setting up cable distribution networks in the US, it is a commercial consideration. And there is, of course, no cap on the number of subscribers which a cable distributor can have. But having two cable systems in the same area would be economically unviable. Moreover, FCC does not have any rule of licensing content providers (channels). Anybody can beam into the US, provided the carriage facilitators (cable networks) are willing to carry them.
On trends in the US
An average American household boasts of 2.1 television sets with some 215 million sets distributed across the country. Subsequently, the average American spends eight hours a day before his set while children spend 50 hours a week more time than they spend attending school. The whole notion of the business is then to make it as seductively attractive as possible, packaging an alluring product designed to call attention. The media has come to revolve around headlines, sound bytes and brief pictures in as compressed a way possible to capture attention.
